What you talking ‘bout Willard?

Comments:  | Leave A Comment


JulianneMalveauxBox

(NNPA)—Halfway through the second presidential debate, I remembered the show where Gary Coleman and Todd Bridges played Arnold and Willis Jackson. Little Arnold was always asking, “What you talking ’bout Willis?” My question, exactly, only this time directed toward Republican nominee Willard Mitt Romney. What in the world was he talking about when he attempted to debate President Obama on Oct. 16?

The Republican nominee behaved as if he were on some kind of upper. Some may have thought his delivery was firm, but when he raised his voice and asked President Obama the same questions several times (Have you checked your pension? Will you answer my question? Well then how much oil production did you cut?). He came off as more obnoxious (or chemically enhanced) than forceful. Because President Obama is a world leader, he could not give the ‘hood response which might have been “shut your mouth up” (or some such related rejoinder). Instead, he responded with dignity and clarity.

Romney is flip-flopping more frequently than a pancake on an IHOP grill. So he can’t make up his mind about his tax plan, women’s equality, coal production, or anything. He says he has a five-point plan, but really it is a one-point plan, “Trust me.” Why should anybody trust him when he can’t say whether he will cut the mortgage deduction, the charitable contributions deduction, or college credits? He says he will have to think about it. What has he been doing for the past 10 years when he was running for president? Clearly not thinking! If it takes him this long to think through his policy, maybe he could join (or with his money, even start) a think tank for the cognitively impaired!

What you talking ‘bout Willard? You don’t yet know whether you can support the Lily Ledbetter Act, the first piece of legislation that President Obama signed upon taking office. You have yet to figure out women’s equality. You forgot that you stood outside a coal plant in Massachusetts and talked about pollution. You are not sure about the tax breaks you took at Bain when you were exporting jobs. Moreover, you connect gasoline prices to President Obama’s policies, not to the greater factor of world demand. Surely, you know better than that. You are running away from your position faster than a gold medal-winning sprinter at the Olympics.

Maybe Willard Mitt Romney knows no better. This may be why he substituted raw aggression for actual facts. He disrespected both moderator Candy Crowley and President Obama, but then when you wear the mantle of the entitled White male, I think you think you can disrespect and insult anyone. Some of the spinmeisters are out calling this a “draw” or saying that President Obama was “too aggressive.” That means that when a Black man makes a point, he is aggressive, but when a privileged and entitled White man just about beats on his chest, hollers, ignores directions, and does a spot-on imitation of Homie the Clown on steroids (sorry, Homie, for the insult), he is being firm. Were the spinmeisters and I watching the same debate? Or were their biases showing?

In the second debate, some say the gender gap closed and as many women favored Romney over President Obama. That implied disturbing things about some women. My mamma used to ask me why good girls liked bad boys. I don’t remember my answer, but back in the day I could find a bad boy faster than a penny in my pocket. If women tipped for Romney after that first debate, they were saying they liked their men loud, rude, and crude. Let’s see where the gender gap goes the aftermath of the second debate, where Obama put his foot down with dignity and class, while Romney ranted as if he were out of control.

What you talking ‘bout, Willard? You distorted the facts so badly about Libya that moderator Candy Crowley had to jump in and correct you. Your “I have to think about that” platform was pure comedy. Your flipping and flopping suggested that you will say anything to get elected, and rose questions about what you will do after you are elected. What you talking ‘bout Willard? Not much!

(Julianne Malveaux is a Washington, D.C.-based economist and writer. She is president emerita of Bennett College for Women in Greensboro, N.C.)

Comments

blog comments powered by Disqus
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 9,259 other followers